Posted
by
Soulskillon Sunday January 05, 2014 @09:24AM
from the issues-that-are-complicated dept.

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Fred Kaplan, the Edward R. Murrow press fellow at the Council on Foreign Relation, writes at Slate that if Edward Snowden's stolen trove of beyond-top-secret documents had dealt only with the domestic surveillance by the NSA, then some form of leniency might be worth discussing. But Snowden did much more than that. 'Snowden's documents have, so far, furnished stories about the NSA's interception of email traffic, mobile phone calls, and radio transmissions of Taliban fighters in Pakistan's northwest territories; about an operation to gauge the loyalties of CIA recruits in Pakistan; about NSA email intercepts to assist intelligence assessments of what's going on inside Iran; about NSA surveillance of cellphone calls 'worldwide,' an effort that 'allows it to look for unknown associates of known intelligence targets by tracking people whose movements intersect.' Kaplan says the NYT editorial calling on President Obama to grant Snowden 'some form of clemency' paints an incomplete picture when it claims that Snowden 'stole a trove of highly classified documents after he became disillusioned with the agency's voraciousness.' In fact, as Snowden himself told the South China Morning Post, he took his job as an NSA contractor, with Booz Allen Hamilton, because he knew that his position would grant him 'to lists of machines all over the world [that] the NSA hacked.' Snowden got himself placed at the NSA's signals intelligence center in Hawaii says Kaplan for the sole purpose of pilfering extremely classified documents. 'It may be telling that Snowden did not release mdash; or at least the recipients of his cache haven't yet published — any documents detailing the cyber-operations of any other countries, especially Russia or China,' concludes Kaplan. 'If it turned out that Snowden did give information to the Russians or Chinese (or if intelligence assessments show that the leaks did substantial damage to national security, something that hasn't been proved in public), then I'd say all talk of a deal is off — and I assume the Times editorial page would agree.'"

The NSA's operations abroad are not against the organization charter, and are, therefor, not against the law.

Some of the revelations, however, while detailing operations that are technically legal, do paint the organzation in a light that shows it to be an unchecked body with too much power and not enough supervision.

The specific examples listed in the article may not be under the above category. Still, it is not clear who did the sifting through and filtering the material to decide what gets published. If Snowden did none of it, than those can be chalcked down to "collateral damage". If the bulk of the material is relevant for a whistle blower, I'd still go with clemancy.

ShacharP.s.Not that I, as a non-US citizen, or even resident, have a real say on the matter.

Both sides are equally treasonous, as they play for the same team. Running myself is tricky, as I'm not a good speaker. Also, if everyone would run as themselves, how many votes would each one get? I think your solutions are stale. Democracy has been hacked, and we need to find a way to get it working again.

By voting. We have incredibly low voter turn out rates. And yes here comes the "both sides are the same so why vote" argument. Alright, then get involved in politics in some way. Most people don't participate, then claim there's nothing that can be done.

And then anyone who tries to seriously get into politics in that way will understand just why the NSA's data collection is so dangerous and gives them so much power. I've seen many people around here make the ridiculous argument that NSA domestic data collection doesn't affect them because they're nobody. Right... But if you want to try to effect real change you stop being a nobody, and all that "dead data" they collected on you suddenly takes on life like so many zombies. Cardinal Richelieu once famously said that if he was given six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men he would find something in them by which would hang him. The NSA has far, far more than that. On all of us. I can only hope that you Americans still have the same courage your founding fathers had when they created your nation. You will need it in these dark days.

So I have to take responsibility for a secret program, which I always suspected but I could never prove existed? And if one of us does do something like Snowden or Manning, he's called a traitor and charged as a criminal? But this is my fault individually?! I have absolutely no control over it whatsoever.

and more to the point, they ARE breaking the law. They are clearly and without question breaking the law, and violating the constitution. All this talk of how it's actually just breaking the "spirit" of the law is just propaganda. I think the real scary part is that they could be using their information to blackmail out leaders and we'd have no idea.

I am an Israeli citizen and resident. As such, I do not have 4th amendment protection. There are similar principles in the Israeli law (yes, there are, really), but they protect me from unauthorized searches done by my country, not be searches done by the US.

If the NSA is spying on me (or, in this particular case, on my prime minister and minister of defense), then they might be breaking Israeli law, but they are not breaking American law.

Soldiers fight for our freedom? As if fighting in some third-world crap hole has anything to do with our freedom here in the United States. I think Snowden is a true hero. He didn't give his life for oil or empire, he gave his life for something that intimately has to do with *our* freedom.

Soldiers fight for our freedom? As if fighting in some third-world crap hole has anything to do with our freedom here in the United States. I think Snowden is a true hero. He didn't give his life for oil or empire, he gave his life for something that intimately has to do with *our* freedom.

Re Plenty of lawyers would be happy to work for him due to the high-profile nature of the case.
They would have to be cleared by the US gov. Thats a short list of US lawyers. The court would be sealed.

And suppose he tried that, he ended up in jail, and the government was somehow able to spin damage control and minimize his efforts? You make some good points, but he took the most realistic path of options to make sure he didn't go down in vain. I must admit, when this all started, I thought it would blow over fairly quickly. Most events like this have. In the end, the only thing that America responds to is money. That Snowden is costing corporations money here is the best thing to happen to America since apple pie. The Constitution is gone and our Rights are a joke, but cost corporations some money, and maybe we will see baby steps taken in the right direction.

Edward Snowden committed no crimes against justice, he committed crimes against a police state, a big brother state that is and was becoming worse by the day. Edward Snowden did not steal anything, he liberated the truth. His continued freedom is proof that many others can achieve the same acts non-violent acts against a criminal state and work together to bring it down and put the minority that distort and corrupt democracy the world over finally behind bars where they belong.

Edward Snowden does not deserve clemency, he should not be charged in the first place. Until such time as he is called as a witness to testify against those who committed real criminal acts the world over, then he would be doing more harm than good by returning. His continued freedom is proof positive that you too can work to bring down a corrupt elements destroying you democracy, your freedom and your rights and do something that has been celebrated since time immemorial escape to fight another day. Each and every time Edward Snowden appears in public free to challenge those criminals is a victory.

If he really wanted to make a point, he should come back and argue his case in court. Plenty of lawyers would be happy to work for him due to the high-profile nature of the case.

He wouldn't get to argue his case in court. The state would pull the "state secrets" card, and practically no evidence in his favor would be allowed at the trial. This assumes he even makes it to trial, and doesn't end up in a mysterious accident or murdered by a fellow inmate.

So what is the alternative? Is it open season for every intelligence agent working for the US to be able to release whatever classified information they want to the world?

Snowden would generate much more support, and fight for lasting change, only if he came back to face the music. Mandela, Ghandi, Aung San Suu Kyi, those are the characters that people look up to. He can argue his case honorably and with authority, which he is not capable of doing now on his makeshift pulpit in far-away Russia.

about NSA surveillance of cellphone calls 'worldwide,' an effort that 'allows it to look for unknown associates of known intelligence targets by tracking people whose movements intersect.'

Yes, it's essential to national security that we "look for", identify, and if necessary kill, any and all "unknown associates" of Ms. Merkel!

It doesn't prove Snowden is in the right, but when the NSA's proponents can't string together one paragraph summarizing the "good" programs Snowden's compromised without this sort of thing, you can be pretty damn sure NSA is so far wrong it's not funny.

Snowden could have been an Ellsberg; instead he chose to take his information to China and Russia. One would have to assume is the first things those country's intelligence agencies would do is get their hands on his files. He could refuse; but then again they could simply bundle him up and ship him back to the US and core political points. In addition, if what Kaplan says is correct and he did this in a premeditated manner then his whole story starts to unravel. At this pony, he has to start wondering what happens when he is a bigger liability to Russia than an asset? Putin certainly, as a former intelligence officer, will have no qualms over cutting him lose once he is no longer useful. finally, there is no upside for any President granting clemency. Cutting a deal, maybe, where Snowden gets a reduced sentence in exchange for cooperation.His biggest problem, in many ways, will be his ego. As his value fades and the world loses interest in him, if Russia doesn't cut him loose he'll probably wind up like Kim Philby, cutoff from friends and family, largely forgotten and ignored. That will take a harsh psychological toll.

Snowden could have been an Ellsberg; instead he chose to take his information to China and Russia.

No, he chose to take *himself* to China and Russia, and I can't say I blame him.

One would have to assume is the first things those country's intelligence agencies would do is get their hands on his files.

Except they didn't, because Snowden didn't take his files with him, at least not unencrypted.

So you're saying that because Snowden says "Putin's men did not threaten to castrate me if I didn't come up with an unencrypted thumb drive, therefore I didn't have Greenwald FedEx me one" then he clearly hasn't done that shit?

Kaplan's point isn't that Snowden is an evil man who should be shot without trial, or even that he should be put on trial, it's that we have to have fairly lengthy and complex investigation, in which Snowden is clearly out of the control of Russia, before we can decide whether a trial

That's assuming Snowden *has* the password to his encrypted files. The best way for him to have done it, near as I can figure it, for him to take the encrypted files but not the keys, and leave the keys with an trusted friend or two. So no matter what the Chinese or Russians might do to him, they wouldn't be able to get the files unlocked.

But there're plenty of places to flee that are neither Russia, nor American friends. Greenwald is quite happy in Brazil. Lots of Latin American states are both significantly freer then Russia and would be very happy to piss on Obama with Snowden.

Kaplan's point isn't that Snowden's presence in Russia is proof that he guilty of giving them information, he's saying it's enough that Snowden should be thoroughly investigated before being allowed back into the country. In legal terms rather then b

The Ellsberg days are over, There is no open court for cleared material. You face the same people you are wanting the press to know about with your cleared lawyer... in a sealed court. Nothing will ever get out and you still face a US court.
Many good people in the US have tried the US court path, some with political protection. After the Ellsberg generation nothing much ever gets out to the tame press anymore. http://cryptome.org/2013-info/06/whistleblowing/whistleblowing.htm [cryptome.org]
Getting out was the only way to get to the press. Now the press is releasing the material in its own way and the wider public can understand what they are getting when they use crypto.http://cryptome.org/2013/11/snowden-tally.htm [cryptome.org] http://cryptome.org/2014/01/nsa-codenames.htm [cryptome.org]
Russia just has to wait and see if the info has been pre sorted, is bait, a trap or has unique internal errors to track Russian spies within the USA.
Russia would be very careful with any free press material vs a person they understand working for them deep with in the US gov over years.

Since all of the NSA's collection programs are international in scope, how should Snowden separate the documents to make an international spying program such as XKEYSCORE resemble a "domestic-only" program? That's an impossible hurdle... The corollary is that in the author's opinion, any leak about the NSA's collection should be punished because it would include spying on "legitimate targets". But his argument sounds reasonable on the surface.

His problems are the leaks about US spy operations on various non-US governments, which are perfectly legal; and revelations about information-gathering in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

And you're totally ignoring one of his main points:If Snowden is in Russia, and the Russians can threaten to shoot him (or even just send him back to the US), why would we believe him that he hasn't snitched on our Russian assets to them? Given that he chose to go there, and

'If it turned out that Snowden did give information to the Russians or Chinese (or if intelligence assessments show that the leaks did substantial damage to national security, something that hasn't been proved in public), then I'd say all talk of a deal is off â" and I assume the Times editorial page would agree.'

This is one of those propositions that can only ever be in the past tense in a single logical state: busted.

These one-way allegations have a way of never dying, or at least not until it's back page news. Meanwhile, they muddy the waters a great deal just hanging there.

Neither is it self-evidently clear that the NSA's voraciousness is separable, to where informed public debate can exist with only one-half of the picture (aka the domestic half).

I think this article translates to: "it's our policy to never grant clemency under any conditions just in case we later discover a game-changing fact".

The option of a conditional clemency is fraught with unsolvable issues. Snowden could attest that he's never actually done any entirely non-clement things, and if were subsequently learned otherwise, his clemency could be revoked. This would be "clement until proven guilty".

Only for this to be workable, one would have to have a way to prove that the NSA never plants leaks of its own information to gain what it dearly wants—have I got a bridge to sell you—as there's no way to prove that a leak originated from Snowden unless the substance of the leak contains information one can verify the NSA never had at that time.

Good luck with that.

And somehow the subtext of all this seems to imply that the NSA's proven snookery (illegitimately authorized as far as the eye can see) should take a back seat to Snowden's unproven snookery (the worst things he might have done).

I don't blame the NSA for the lamentable standards of civic discourse. But neither can the agency hide from their legacy of operating behind a thick smoke screen of democratic false impressions.

Every country with their own little sets of 'freedom fighters' or revolitionaries would tell their groups not to trust email traffic, mobile phone calls, and radio transmissions by default.
As for cyber-operations, every country has known since the late 1960's that their telco, crypto, banking, legal, embassy networks where under constant surveillance and could not to be trusted.
By the 1980's encrypted embassy plain text was finding its way into the Western press...
Some nations crypto staff seem to be not working for their nations best interests when passing junk encryption... the German efforts to protect their political communications seem very slow...
As for Russian or China will they really be baited by an ex CIA source who got to work for the NSA via a contractor?
Thankfully what has changed is a deeper understanding of software, hardware and crypto been junk as sold, delivered, reviewed or upgraded.

Kaplan says the NYT editorial calling on President Obama to grant Snowden 'some form of clemency' paints an incomplete picture when it claims that Snowden 'stole a trove of highly classified documents after he became disillusioned with the agency's voraciousness.' In fact, as Snowden himself told the South China Morning Post, he took his job as an NSA contractor, with Booz Allen Hamilton, because he knew that his position would grant him 'to lists of machines all over the world [that] the NSA hacked.' Snowden got himself placed at the NSA's signals intelligence center in Hawaii says Kaplan for the sole purpose of pilfering extremely classified documents.

What Kaplan leaves out is that gig was not the first time Snowden worked for the NSA, he'd been working with the NSA and CIA in various capacities since 2006. It was during this work "he became disillusioned with the agency's voraciousness". He took the contractor position explicitly to get the evidence for the illegal programs he already had first hand knowledge of.

Kaplan actually emphasizes that this job was only 3 months, implying that Snowden had just learned about the programs and is therefore lying about all his deliberations and questioning within the agency.

Whatever you think of Snowden I think there's enough evidence to conclude that Kaplan is a hack.

No, a distinction that matters. Because he took that new job, and started compromising the credentials of his co-workers (many of whom have now lost their careers) pretty much right away. He walked into that new gig with a specific agenda, essentially lying from the get-go about his motivations. Take off the beer goggles and actually look at the reality of the situation.

Third, complaining that other employees suffered career damage because of his actions doesn't change Snowden's motivations. You might as well argue that Snowden's a bad guy because his actions have forced Alexander to retire early.

He walked into that new gig with a specific agenda, essentially lying from the get-go about his motivations.

He knew there was a problem due to direct personal experience of it on his previous job and so he decided to get proof. So what? The alternative would have been what? To just pretend he didn't know anything was wrong? Without proof any whistleblowing would have been dismissed, he'd already seen that happen to the whistleblowers who came before him.

Take off the beer goggles and actually look at the reality of the situation.

no, you do NOT know what they have. They show edges, nothing more. He ASSUMED before he went in. ppl who work at TLA's, except at the top end, generally do NOT know what each capabilities there are. Snowden had NO IDEA of what was in the NSA when he went there. That is why he became a traitor. He had already decided to be a traitor before he applied there.

Had the released documents only reveled domestic spying, then the NSA might have looked even worse in the eyes of Americans, but the USA might not have looked as bad to the rest of the world. It would have been a misleading image of the USA though.

It may have been illegal according to current American law for Snowden to reveal, that USA is treating every other country in the world as an enemy. But you have got to ask if it really is Snowden, who is wrong here. It could be that it is Snowden who is right, and on the other side, we have the law, the NSA, and the government who are all wrong.

I'd say it is up to the population of the USA to decide whose side they want to be on.

If the population of the USA thinks it is OK that NSA is spying on all other countries as if they were an enemy of USA, then the population should make this point very clear. In that case Snowden should never go back to the USA, but there will surely be countries of another opinion, in which Snowden can live as a free man.

If OTOH the population of the USA thinks that the NSA has gone too far, then they should also make this point very clear. If it is only the small elite in power, who consider the spying to be OK, then the population need to replace them with somebody who acts in the interest of the population. In this case it is of little importance, if the NSA acted within the law, the law need to be updated to make it absolutely clear, that this is no longer legal. And Snowden's actions should retroactively be made legal.

I don't know what the majority of the population of USA thinks about that question, but I think the world deserves to know. Does the population of USA think it is OK for USA to be spying on every other country?

Of course the US population wants us to spy on every country. We are not some pansy Aristocratic Monarchy which only wins through honorable behavior. We are the United States, and we win because we cheat. George Washington never won a fair fight in his life. Bobby Lee fought fair, and lost half his Army to a guy who didn't fight at all (Bill Sherman), and the other half to a guy (Grant) who won mostly by knowing the best place to throw bodies. So the American people don't think we should stop tapping foreign leaders phones. We get kinda embarrassed about Angie Merkell because she seems like a nice lady and we don't want to remind her of the Stasi, but we won't stop tapping her phone. We are America, our unofficial motto is "trust, but verify", we will cheat our asses off (just ask the American Indians, there's a reason they gave up on reforming us and became citizens in the 20s), and if you don't like it you should probably support a European superstate because that's the only thing that can stop us.

Now if you did a poll and asked about mass data collection I doubt Americans would put it in the same "of course we cheat" category, but this article isn't about arresting Snowden for the mass data collection. It's about the spying on foreign officials, outing our techniques in Pakistan, etc. And that shit is firmly in "of course we cheat."

Sorry, no. He is definitely *not* a traitor. He has not levied war on the United States, nor has he given aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States (no, releasing the information he has released doesn't count as that). So he is not a traitor.

As far as the intent argument goes. We have know all kinds of abuses have been happening for a long time. Courts have issued rules on insane standings rules that say things like "you can't know your right were violated" so you can't sue, which means you can't find out through discovery.

So someone like Snowden who is on the outside would have had little choice but to intentionally infiltrate the NSA or just keep bending over and taking it like everyone else. It might be more fair to describe him as an activist than a whistle-blower, but morally I think there is plenty of equivalence there.

The issue about disclosing the stuff that isn't likely to be illegal or outside charter is that it was probably necessary for credibility. If the only stuff he handed over was heavily filtered and redacted the only questions that would have been raised would be "why should we believe any of this is authentic, the courts will never let us verify any of it?" and "What aren't you telling us?" It isn't as if he posted the whole trove on 4chan or something he leaked to (mostly) responsible press agencies who have always played the role of filter for this kind of thing in western democracy. I think the wider leaks though perhaps unfortunate with respect to some national interests were quite necessary and done as responsibly as possible.

All and all the arguments against clemency pretty much boil down to "he threatened order, and we can't have that" Which when it comes to military and intelligence personal and civilian employes of similar nature is not an argument entirely without merit; but the NSA is so out of hand a wrench any smaller would have done nothing to even slow the gears. At some point the system gets to broken to work with in it.

He copied the documents but did not deprive the NSA of them. He only copied them and did not steal them. This is the same distinction that must be made when discussing copyright violations. It seems like a small point, but the thievery elicits much stronger emotional responses than copying does, and some are making deliberate efforts to paint Snowden in as bad a light as possible. Please, let's use the correct term.

...for the people, and of the people has no legitimate reason to indefinitely keep secrets from the people. When temporary secrets are needed, they should be placed in escrow, so the reasonableness of the duration can be evaluated when it comes out, and those keeping the secret can be held accountable. Until the government provides such reasonable checks, surely the people are justified in seizing all of its information by force.

I am convinced that Mr. Snowden represents more than himself, and that he has help and assistance from a faction or factions inside the organs of state security that do not like the way things are headed.

This piece by Mr. Kaplan clearly represents a bit of propaganda from the other side, the elements inside state security that do like the way things are going. In that light, while not informational, it is informative about the shadow play going on behind the scenes.

That editorial was written to shift perception. The CFR is part of the inner circle in Washington. Anything that comes from anyone associated with it should be viewed as a tactic in a larger campaign. He's not trying to argue the finer points of Snowden's guilt or innocence. He's trying to move the needle of public opinion, so that subsequent actions against Snowden have less resistance.

Oliver North called himself a "patriot" after being pardoned for his involvement in weapon sales to Hezbolla, less than a year after it had blown up more than one hundred US Marines, weapon sales to Iran which had declared itself and enemy of the USA and a bit of embezzlement on the side to pay for home improvements and a car. Various other people in the party that is now calling for Snowdon's blood also called him a patriot. He had his photo taken wrapped in a flag when he was running for office. He said he was selling weapons to terrorists without orders from above (although Poindexter was implicated it was not by North), just out of a sense of duty to his country.Fast forward to Snowdon. Why should he get a raw deal when what he did was far less damaging than North, and his whistleblowing, apparently also out of a sense of duty to his country, was of far greater national benefit than selling weapons to terrorists and a declared enemy?

There is little doubt in my mind, some of the best and brightest, the people writing the exploits and doing the most devious thinking, were recruited from the floor of DEFCON. The military finally smartened up and looked at the talent pool, unfortunately for the American public.
NSA recruiter: "Do you want to be in the shadows of the public, and do what you do for little to no money, assume huge risks with little to no credit for your work? OR, would you like to work side by side with other like minds, making 250k+ a year, company vehicle, paid housing, big bonuses for working code, and get to work with unlimited bandwidth and computing power? You will have physical access to devices when needed to test your code and theories, and, you will be completely immune to prosecution. Free coffee, sodas, meals, gyms, 4 weeks of paid vacation. You WILL NOT, however, be allowed to work from home, and, you will never have to take your work home with you. Sound good?"
Me: "I didn't graduate high school, is this a show-stopper?"
NSA recruiter: "You are going to be a real asset to the NSA, we value your commitment, sign here."
I bet they never thought what they would be doing would lead to this. They thought they were strictly going after bad guys. Getting your ego pumped and stroked tends to make you forget who you are and what you once stood for.

So some guy from The Establishment says that Snowden and all future leakers should have somehow performed a humanly impossible feat of meta analysis on millions of documents which constitute proof of widespread criminal and unconstitutional activities . THAT is the standard leakers shall be held to. Or else. They're not leakers, and it's espionage.

So says the Council on Foreign Relations.

You can just seem them breaking into workshop gorups brainstorming how to spin the Snowden Affair so as to turn the American public against him and give the NSA defenders on PBS and FOX talking points.

"Hey polls show people think he's a whistleblower , but maybe if we can split that perception by appearing to agree with the public on *some* of the stuff while damning him with the other stuff, we can split the opposition."

This from the CFR. What did you expect? I used to think that the CFR might be some kind of collective voice of wisdom, experience and expertise on world affairs. You know, people who had wide ranging real world experience and were out of their posts or retired but still engaged and concerned.

I am an asshole this way; I impugn my own idealism to the actions of others.

The CFR is a bunch of hand picked academics and fucking yes men and women drawn from previous administrations and Ivy leagues universities whose main function is to think and live and produce "solutions" within the Skinner box out of which cookies , cake and ice cream have fallen to them their whole lives . They're entirely composed of and express the perspective of government and establishment academic institutions whose "think tanks" and "department chairs" are little more than hand-up-your-ass-moving-your-mouth , you-know-who-feeds-you-baby extensions of Washington officialdom and groupthink.

Good thing they weighed in on Snowden. I know we were all breathlessly awaiting their opinion on this matter.

Isn't it curious: do we really know more now than before Snowden made his "revelations"? We already knew that the NSA was snooping in our "metadata" and in all kinds of international traffic. So who now protests what the NSA does? Great Britain, Germany, Israel, Australia, India and Brazil. All countries with strong ties to the U.S.; all countries who have cooperated or can be presumed to have cooperated with the intelligence-gathering of the U.S. in the past. Why don't we hear the protestations of China, of North Korea, or of neutral countries like Spain?

Isn't it curious: the NSA "contractor" plugs in his portable drive into the evil network and, like Princess Leia, carries off the plans to the intelligence-gathering form of the Death Star for the Rebels while being undetected. Who would you pick to act such a part? Perhaps a young, geeky-looking guy -- oh, and let's make him white so we can avoid negative colorations of the the U.S. (and other countries') minorities...

Isn't it curious: the NSA "contractor" escapes the control of the possessor of the information. He supposedly knows all of the right contacts to gain "amnesty" in a foreign country. He lands in Russia rather than in a more neutral country... and Russia does have strong ties to the U.S. now, don't they? He who "betrayed" the NSA sips expensive wines and eats caviar under the protection of a country that really shouldn't care less what happens to him, right?

When the grass grows high in the forestland, sometimes the keepers of the forest execute a controlled burn. They intentionally start a fire in the grass so they can have the resources to keep it under control, rather than wait for some future accident to cause a crisis. I suspect that here the grass is public opinion, and Mr. Snowden is the match put into the grass.

Kaplan is arguing that Snowden would have to be perfectly selective about what he took in order to "deserve" clemency. He would have to take from the NSA "the pound of flesh nearest the heart", without a drop of blood or grain of sinew or bone. That's an impossible standard.

Snowden shouldn't get mere "clemency". Snowden should get a full pardon for the laws he broke, plus the Presidential Medal of Freedom and/or the Congressional Gold Medal for exposing these totalitarian programs.

And I don't mean that in a positive way. This is the first time I've seen where someone has actually expended some effort to write up something that seems convincing.

However, it is still full of holes. There are two very important ones that are hidden in plain sight, bold-faced lies said out straight so that most audiences won't even notice, much less question them.

The first is his "why didn't he reveal anything about the evil other guys? is he maybe working for them?" allegation, hidden in the two sentences

It may be telling that Snowden did not release [...] any documents detailing the cyber-operations of any other countries, especially Russia or China [...]If it turned out that Snowden did give information to the Russians or Chinese

Well, doh, he didn't work for any russian or chinese intelligence agency during his career, so he did not have an inside view or access to classified documents in any of them. Insinuating otherwise is like complaining that Putin didn't fix the US healthcare.gov problem.

The second crazy-ass hole is that the NSA also did good. You find that a lot these days, apparently it's been given out as a party line.

Well, that is a dramatically misleading statement, not because it is wrong but because it misses the entire point. Allow me to illustrate:

I propose we create an agency similar to the NSA, let's call it the NCA - the National Crime-Eradication Agency. It will have a budget of a billion US$ and one simple task: Buy as many guns and ammo as you can get for that amount, and then drive into every big american city and gun down everyone they meet.

Like the NSA, they will successfully execute a death penalty on many, many murderers, rapists and other criminals who escaped detection or conviction. Even many whose crimes we didn't yet know about because the victims kept silent or were never found.

All in favour?

Of course not, it's a crazy scheme. Just like the NSAs "total surveilance so we detect a few bad apples" approach. Destroying the privacy of several billion people is not an adequate price to pay for capturing a dozen or even a hundred bad guys.

Sure it did get them some. So would carpet-bombing New York City. Success alone is a worthless measure without taking cost into account.

They want to criticize Snowden for not being more selctive in his release of information? But he offered discuss with the NSA what releases might compromise US security. They refused to talk with him. Now they say he released more than the minimum necessary to demonstrate that the NSA was breaking the law. What is a respecatble whistle-blower to do?

Also, his country wants to throw him in jail for exposing foul play, so he is forced to flee. Some other country offers shelter, perhaps in exchange for information, and so an idiot says "oh, that kind of betrayal is unforgivable". Really? Hey, US, protip: want to avoid the risk of defection? Then don't treat your own like enemies to start with.

Ever notice what happened to NSA people who took the "legal" whistle blower route? They got ignored and marginalized. If the US wants people to go the legal route in order to expose wrongdoing, then they need to make it work effectively. Else this sort of thing is blowback for sweeping dirt under the carpet.

Actually, Snowden claims to have gone through the normal channels, except the problem is, he didn't go to anybody. He claims that simply having mentioned his concerns to his boss and co-workers, and not getting any response or shared concern, means that he "tried."

He could have, for example, gone to Senator Wyden, who was publicly critical of the program, has the security clearance, is on the Intelligence Committee, and was already warning that the program was bigger than people knew.

We'll never know what Congress would have done with the truth, because they didn't find out until the same time(*) that the Russians and Chinese found out.

There are a lot of people in New Orleans who would disagree with that.

Wait, the U.S. military shot down a hurricane that was about to attack U.S. citizens? Or it fought the hurricane, and drove it back into the sea, after it dared to attack U.S. soil?

Look, I appreciate the cleanup efforts that the National Guard was able to engage in, after the local politicians finally got their act together enough to let the National Guard and FEMA into their jurisdictions (which they held off doing for a very long time, at the cost of many lives, and a lot of property), but to say that the military in this case was protecting citizens, rather than engaging in a relief operation, is a lie.

On behalf of the men and women who serve in the military, I think your comment is ill advised.

Regardless of whether you, I or they agree with our government's actions, they risk everything to protect you the best way they know how. Don't blame the military for what you don't like. Become involved in politics to put decision makers in office that order the military to do what you believe is right.

I'm old enough to remember the shameful way that veteran's were treated returning from Viet Nam and I hope that horrible chapter in history is never repeated.

The fact that your comment is modded insightful to the max is pretty disturbing.

It's no secret that the US and Saudi Arabia have been giving Al Qaeda weapons and money when they do mercenary work. Yet somehow no one wants to talk about how to prevent Saudis from funneling money into Al Qaeda.

Let's face it, Al Qaeda is the real life Emmanuel Goldstein: controlled opposition used to justify all the totalitarian legislation that the people in power want to impose.

The U.S. had EVERYTHING to do with Al Qaeda! In fact the CIA were the ones who started the whole thing back in the 80'a. Back in the 80's when Russia was at war with Afganistan it was the CIA who was funding, training and arming the Mujahideen - and guess who was the leader of the Mujahideen? Yup Osama Bin Laden! The part of the Mujahideen lead by Osama Bin Laden eventually became Al Qaeda. The U.S. CREATED and for the most part has some control of Al Qaeda. Heck even Anwar Al-Awlaki (the Al Qaeda leader DINED at the Pentagon months AFTER 9/11!

Al-Qaeda has its origins in the uprising against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Thousands of volunteers from around the Middle East came to Afghanistan as mujahideen, warriors fighting to defend fellow Muslims. In the mid-1980s, Osama bin Laden became the prime financier for an organization that recruited Muslims from mosques around the world. These "Afghan Arab" mujahideen, which numbered in the thousands, were crucial in defeating Soviet forces"

US, Pakistani and other financing and supportSee also: Operation Cyclone

The mujahideen were significantly financed and armed (and are alleged to have been trained) by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the administrations of Carter[5] and Reagan, and also by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan under Zia-ul-Haq, Iran, the People's Republic of China and several Western European countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden [wikipedia.org] Claims have been made that the American government, and in particular the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), are responsible for enabling "Afghan Arabs," and in particular Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda.In mid-1979, about the same time as the Soviet Union deployed troops into Afghanistan, the United States began giving several hundred million dollars a year in aid to the Afghan Mujahideen insurgents fighting the Afghan Marxist government and the Soviet Army in Operation Cyclone. Along with native Afghan mujahideen were Muslim volunteers from other countries, popularly known

I don't know if you're serious as someone else rated you funny, but as the lack of terrorist attacks since 9/11 is cited often enough as reason to justify all of our countermeasures, I'll assume you're serious.

While 9/11 was a tragedy, let's also not forget that it was a singular event. Would a huge expansion in the intelligence community have stopped it? Who knows. Personally, I think the thing that would have had the greatest chance of stopping it would have been a commander in chief who would have taken

are you forgetting kent state? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings [wikipedia.org] - Sure it was cambodia not vietnam but it changes nothing, in 1970 the US military killed college students in america. Now obama kills americans with drones.

sorry but if you dont think that th eUSA is capable of committing atrocities as well you need to get your head out of your ass

The biggest concern with any Russian or Chinese documents is what the NSA's having them reveals about the American intelligence capabilities and operations. A public release of such documents, while embarrassing to Russia and China, might be even more damaging to US intelligence, and might possibly expose people working for the US.

But a *public* release hasn't happened. Instead, Snowden spent several days in the Russian consulate before being allowed into Russia. What did he do to convince the Russians to let him in? If *you* were the Russian foreign ministry, how would *you* handle this? It's a legitimate question.

If Snowden is to be pardoned, it has to be done on the basis that the good he did in revealing the NSA domestic spying program outweighs the damage he has done to our foreign intelligence, which may well be the case.

The biggest concern with any Russian or Chinese documents is what the NSA's having them reveals about the American intelligence capabilities and operations. A public release of such documents, while embarrassing to Russia and China, might be even more damaging to US intelligence, and might possibly expose people working for the US.

all this, while at the same time not serving the purpose of Snowden: "To show how NSA is spying on everyone, specially when this 'everyone' specifically include innocent by stander like US' own population or friendly ally countries. To show abuses of surveillance"- "Look all the nasty things NSA is doing on US population themselves, in the name of war on {bogeyman du jour}": that suit the purpose and shall be revealed by journalist, after the currate everything to remove dangerous informations.- "Look at all the things we've managed to steal, here are some documents from Russia and China that should have remained confidential, but did not": that only brings problems.

Even if Snowden did manage to get such documents (no proof exists), these documents aren't likely to get released.

Instead, Snowden spent several days in the Russian consulate before being allowed into Russia. What did he do to convince the Russians to let him in? If *you* were the Russian foreign ministry, how would *you* handle this? It's a legitimate question.

Why do people keep thinking that the information inside Snowden's documents are a total surprise to Russia and China? These countries have had their own intelligence services *FOR AGES*. People at current top level inside the NSA weren't *even born* back when Russia already had cheka. This countries and their intelligence services have way much more experience and resource than a signle rogue consultant like Snowden (although, for his defence, Snowden *is* brillant and *does* have lots of knowledge and enoguh discipline to have run his stint successfully, without early detection). If Snowden has managed to gatter all this, then one can only imagine all what top opperatives of FSB, MSS, and others have managed to collect.The same information that Snowden did manage to gather in his documents, and (probably even more) are probably secretly know by Russia and China thanks to their own intelligence channels.

So to go back to your "Russian foreign ministry" exemple, I'll probably keep rellying on exclusively all that FSB (and before KGB) has gattered. They are good guys with experience and ressources, and most of their intelligence can be trusted. I'll absolutely avoid getting anywhere near Snowden's document. The debriefing at the Russian consulate very likely didn't at any point at all concern the intelligence gattered by Snowden. Almost all the time was very probably spent trying to solve all the diplomatic hassle to manage to find a way to safely bring Snowden to russia and find him a place there (and deciding on an exact status, etc.) all the while avoiding hurting allies. Simply bringing Snowden to Russia publicly is a big enough madness that explains alone all the time spent. Given all this already existing circus, trying to get hold on the documents would be the worst idea possible. The "Russian foreign ministry" didn't probably give a fuck about Snowden's documents.- Peeking into those publicly known documents would have angered even more the USA and would have been even more detrimental to the diplomatic ties of Russia and any other country concerned by those documents. Peeking these documents would be damaging.- Chances are, that anything in these documents happened to already be known through Russia's own spying program. It's not worth looking at them to begin with. Peeking these documents brings almost no advantages at all for Russia.

Given this, Russia has probably decided "forget about this" regarding the document. And concentrated on the difficult task of bring Snowden to them.- That has also been a diplomatically complicated task.- But a

First, this is exactly the kind of thing someone from the Council on Foreign Relations would be expected to say. No surprise there: "Let's keep control over everything and punish anybody who dares challenge!"

But let's put things in perspective: if the U.S. still behaved in a civilized and rational manner in regard to whistleblowers, he would not have had to escape the United States and seek asylum elsewhere. This is fundamentally the fault of our U.S. government. Government breaks the law and violates the Constitution (in a rather extreme manner) via the NSA. When that is exposed, government tries to retaliate, also in an extreme manner. Government drives the person with the offending documents somewhere else.

There is not a single step in this process that was not a direct result of government action. I've said this before, but I will repeat it:

Disobedience to government is not treason. Betraying your country and people is treason. Snowden committed the former. U.S. government committed the latter.

The biggest concern with any Russian or Chinese documents is what the NSA's having them reveals about the American intelligence capabilities and operations. A public release of such documents, while embarrassing to Russia and China, might be even more damaging to US intelligence, and might possibly expose people working for the US.

This is the only valid reason for him not to have released those documents.

If he had Australia's operations in Indonesia he has everything the NSA has ever done in relation to the Russians.

But a *public* release hasn't happened. Instead, Snowden spent several days in the Russian consulate before being allowed into Russia. What did he do to convince the Russians to let him in? If *you* were the Russian foreign ministry, how would *you* handle this? It's a legitimate question.

I'd get the Russia docs. I'd make it clear that no other country would be allowed to get Ed Snowden alive as long as I didn't have those documents, and then I'd offer Snowden a deal he couldn't refuse.

Part of the deal would be a detailed list of everyone who has received those documents, including contact info so that I c

Your post is one of the most venal I've read in a while. There is no way to perfectly separate the two kinds of information- illegal domestic spying and "other". You are perfectly well aware of that. So is everyone else making this kind of argument.

I makes me wonder how many commentators on slashdot are actually placed there to shape public opinion by the agencies concerned.

This is just another pile of bullshit to turn the nation's attention away from the fact that the NSA is breaking the law in very dangerous ways and needs to be reigned in.

If he committed one felony to bring another much greater felony to justice, then the comparison would be more that I saw a car with a murder victim in back and keys in the car, and I jumped in the car and drove it to the police.

In that instance, justice would be to thank the thief, and slam the murderer to the wall.

And no, it seems quite likely that Barack Obama matters not at all, if the NSA is beyond the law. I suggest no clemancy, no pardon, and let it be a testimony to shame the US ever after.

'It may be telling that Snowden did not release — or at least the recipients of his cache haven't yet published — any documents detailing the cyber-operations of any other countries, especially Russia or China,'

Why would he have access to Russian or Chinese documents?

If he did have access to Russian or Chinese documents, it would be because

- the NSA (or CIA or...) stole or snooped them and

- they would be important enough that they would be mentioned in the briefing powerpoints that make up so much of what Snowden apparently has access to.

In other words, this is a sign he is protecting some of the NSA's most truly important secrets, and also a sign that Kaplan is dealing in misinformation if not disinformation.

'It may be telling that Snowden did not release — or at least the recipients of his cache haven't yet published — any documents detailing the cyber-operations of any other countries, especially Russia or China,'

Why would he have access to Russian or Chinese documents?

Because most of the NSA's job is to research foreign intel agencies, therefore it has to have some data on those agencies. Signals intelligence is all about reading the other guy's communications, and you can't really do that unless you have some idea what he's communicating about.

More relevant to Snowden his job was China. He gave presentations on China. He managed to find lots of info on Democracies whose intel agencies he wasn't supposed to be watching (like Australia), but jack-squat on the one that he was supposed to be watching. He did this mostly by acquiring usernames and passwords from people who were working with those democracies, which kinda implies that even if he didn't have access to the NSA's info on Russia officially he could have gotten it unofficially.

I can't think of a reason a rational person would think he could out ALL our intelligence operations to literally everyone (including the Russians, Chinese, and Al Qaeda), and he'd get a pardon because some subset of those operations annoy people. I suspect he didn't think that. He feared Russian and Chinese assassins more then he feared US warrants, therefore he didn't out their operations; and now even if he's got 0% chance of getting a pardon his only play is to ask for one.

How do you know what he did or did not copy? After investigating for half a year the spooks themselves can even agree on how much documents he actually took, let alone which ones. Also, as far as it is known, Snowden doesn't control the documents and he isn't deciding what will be and what will not be released. That's what the journalists do.

I'm not sure why leaking informations about spy operations from Russia or China should be some sort of test of Snowden's intentions. It looks more like Mr. Murrow is no

It might be considered that the NSA, and the supporting government, are the actual traitors, acting against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and Snowden is the actual hero. History (and to some extend, truth) being written by the victorious belligerent, the future will tell who's on whose side.

The Founding Fathers were traitors to the Crown, whatever history will think of them London wanted to see them hang. Any Nazi commander who refused to take part in the Holocaust faced an execution squad. Historians might argue, but if Snowden ever sets foot on US soil he'd never see the outside of a prison cell ever again. Many people will argue that Snowden has not only exposed a runaway government agency, he's also exposed the nation's secrets to its enemies. That despite the best of intentions, you can't have people running around exposing classified documents as they feel like. Even those who like the message would kill the messenger.

No. The traitors are the ones running this country without regards to either the Constitution or the best interests of the people being governed. The traitors are the ones who do what they're payed to do solely in the interest of personal gain.

Constitution says:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

I'll see your "Constitution says", and raise you a "Constitution also says":

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Traitor or not, Snowden has exposed a massive crime by the US government against it's citizens. Why are we even talking about him? Where is the prosecutorial inertia for holding our lying leaders accountable? Dead in our mother's basements, apparently.

He's saying that there is evidence that Snowden is not some heroic patriot, but just a regular old spy that got paid off by the Russians or Chinese, and is just using the domestic spying to help get the public on his side and make it more difficult for the U.S. government to catch/prosecute him. And even if that is not the case, he still exposed a lot of the U.S.'s international spying efforts which could potentially cause immediate harm to U.S. forces overseas, in addition to exposing the domestic spying.

That's called throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Of course there are rumors that Snowden is a regular spy. "reportedly there is evidence" is a rumor. There are people whose full time job it is to spread those rumors about all NSA/CIA whistleblowers. It's standard procedure. As for claims about damaging the US interests this is also standard procedure against a lot of journalism. Where are you going to put the bar? With criteria saying you should be able to prove that what you're publishing cannot absolutely damage US interests you're never going to be able to publish anything that says "hey guys, our government is fucking us over". That is not how things should work, even if your government would very much like it that way.Journalism should publish except in clearcut extreme cases.

Where else could Snowden have reasonably fled to in the early stages of this saga? There are very few countries that won't take shit from the US, China and Russia being at the top of the list. Remember, a PRESIDENT couldn't land his plane in a few European countries because Snowden MIGHT have been aboard.

Also, believe it or not, Russians are humans, and thus have human rights, even if they aren't recognized by the government. Same goes for politicians.

Snowden chose to take part in a war...
part of it is cold (against Russia and/or China - no shooting takes place on those fronts but there is some real struggle about shifting the power balance this or that way...
(winning is impossible anyway)...
if Snowden is let free, I will not shed any tears when the long arm of youknowwho reaches him...

Please tell me this a subtle satire in the style of 1984 and Dr. Strangelove, and that you truly don't see the World in such black and white terms. We are in a cold wa

I am with you the 12th Century brand of Islamic Culture is absolutely something we ought to seek to eradicate.

Meanwhile we are supporting it by assisting Saudi Arabia which is funding and organising that spread. As an example, their recent huge donation of weapons and money to a group with that mindset in Lebanon will probably spark a new civil war. 12th Century mindset with modern US made ordinance.

There is no American law which prevents America from spying on non-Americans. We've signed no treaty that says we won;t spy on foreign countries. That means it is by definition legal for us to do so.

The laws in the article you linked to are all non-American, mostly from the Commonwealth Realms.

So? That's the whole point. American exceptionalism is thinking that Americans can break laws in other countries and get away with it because they're special. That's why the world hates Americans. They have double standards. They can break laws in other countries but if others come to America, woe betides them is they break the law.

It's not exceptionalism if everyone does it. It may be morally wrong if everyone does it, but it is by definition not exceptionalism.

The UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were actually part of our intelligence alliance, so they were involved in every spy op we were. the French, Israelis, and Russians have spying institutions that are literally legendary. It's against common sense to take a laptop you like to China because you know they'll install malware on it in violation of the laws of your home coun